Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!decwrl!ucbvax!ziploc!eps From: eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: NeXT Review;Quite a machine, but not a Mac Message-ID: <419@toaster.SFSU.EDU> Date: 23 Mar 90 08:54:20 GMT References: <404@toaster.SFSU.EDU> <9942@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <6329@blake.acs.washington.edu> <9958@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> Reply-To: eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) Organization: San Francisco State University Lines: 87 [Roger: The Followup-To: header is for newsgroups, not e-mail addresses. You made things difficult... ] In article <9958@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> rogerj@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Roger Jagoda) writes: >Yes, I agree. I just hope that with NeXT's incredible gag order, people >don't think NeXT isn't doing anything to try to make their product >better. There's a wonderful response to this in the March 19, 1990 issue of _MicroTimes_ ("California's Computer Magazine") in Jim Warren's "Realizable Fantasies" column. Note: This is copyrighted material by the author. I think this small excerpt qualifies as fair use, and I'm not going to trim it down lest I be accused of quoting out of context, which is the second-worst journalistic offense (the first being spelling someone's name wrong). Besides, the last time I wanted to use something from MicroTimes I asked for permission "the right way" and they didn't even have the decency to respond. I ended up not using the material. Note that I am giving proper attribution, I'm not doing this for commercial gain, and they are getting free publicity out of it. Since usenet doesn't permit commercial activity in technical groups, I'll just refer you to their e-mail addresses, microx@well.sf.ca.us or MICROTIMES@MCIMAIL.COM if you want to get in touch with them. It's a fine publication, even if their staff have been ----heads about reproduction permissions. (They ARE reading this.) ----- begin quoted material ----- Fixing the Vaporware Problem All but the most naively new computer users know of vaporware-- exciting new ``products,'' announced but unavailable. Their promoters' cliche': ``We won't ship until the product is absolutely solid.'' _Hah!_ [he snorts]. If we can't get it, it's not a ``product.'' There _are_ examples of companies exercising the ethical fortitude of withholding product announcements until they actually have 'em. E.g., when Borland recently announced Turbo Pascal 5.5 with OOP extensions (object-oriented programming)-- _hot dang!_--they distributed a six-foot high stack of _real_- ware, on the spot. When DigiFont announced super-cheap LaserJet font packages--by golly--they shipped 'em, literally, the next day. ----- end quoted material ----- > I didn't want to propose that since A/UX 2.0 came out NeXT was >doomed. Far from it, Apple is legitimizing NeXT's approach by trying >to copy it (friendly GUI over UNIX). IMHO, they're taking very different approaches. The NeXT _User's Reference_ says on p. 1, "You can also enter UNIX(R) commands on the NeXT Computer; however, most users won't need to do this during the normal course of their work." NeXT advocates *hiding* UNIX from users; Apple's Commando is quite the opposite: it promotes UNIX literacy by constructing actual shell commands for you. Once you learn them, you don't need the "training wheels." Apple's "friendly GUI" has a name: MultiFinder. It's little different from the same old Mac interface they've been pushing for years, except it's using a UNIX file system with file protection--hopefully making it somewhat more resistant to the COMPUTER VIRUSES that give MacOS its "Typhoid Mary" reputation. So what if A/UX will run "hundreds of Macintosh applications." You can buy 386-based UNIX systems that will run thousands of MS-DOS applications. The ONLY "GUI UNIX" program you get with A/UX 2.0 (according to their literature) is a mouse-based editor. There are REAL applications for the NeXT. (I don't want to get into comparing A/UX and Mach, other than to note that they're, well, Apples and ...) > I'm sure NeXT will be ahead of >the II F_ingXpensive withtheir NeXT machine... They already are. The *only* thing Apple has to crow about is the 40 MHz clock speed. Other than that it's basically half of what the NeXT is now. Compare retail prices for realistic configurations, and NeXT wins. All NeXT needs to do now is release a low-cost upgrade to a faster 68030 (or 68040) and that's pretty much going to be the end of this discussion. The IIfx is just not a workstation-class machine. It's what the Mac II should have been to begin with. -=EPS=-